Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/1/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tennessee Chamber Names Bradley Jackson Interim President
Apr 1, 2016 | The Chattanoogan
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, announced Friday that Bradley Jackson has been named interim president of the organization. -
(ACC Mentioned) Tennessee Chamber Names Interim President
Apr 1, 2016 | Nashville Post
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry announced today its has named Bradley Jackson as interim president. -
(ACC Mentioned) BPA in Cans Comes Under Fire
Apr 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
Bisphenol A is back in the spotlight, this time in epoxy linings of metal cans, rather than in polycarbonate. -
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. Launches Prop 65 Search Portal
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Companies will see increased disclosure of chemical information in California under state regulations taking effect today. -
Supreme Court Mercury Ruling Affects TSCA Bill -- Professors
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers must avoid language in pending chemicals legislation similar to Clean Air Act provisions that were subject to a key ruling by the Supreme Court in 2015, law professors urged in a letter. -
TSCA Reform Could Boost EPA's Push For 'Next Generation' Enforcement
Apr 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's push to implement "next generation" enforcement is increasing the risk that companies may face agency enforcement or private litigation for potential Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) violations, says an industry attorney, who argues that efforts to reform TSCA could further increase companies' risk of such actions. -
EPA Targets Hydrofluorocarbons
Apr 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The Environmental Protection Agency is clearing the way for additional chemicals to replace hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potent greenhouse gases that are used as refrigerants. -
Lawmakers, Health Groups Line Up Behind Embattled EPA Rule
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A variety of Clean Power Plan supporters are coming out of the woodwork this week as deadlines approach for federal court filings. -
Va. Governor Pressed to Go Beyond EPA Rule
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Environmental groups are asking Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe to develop a compliance regime for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that goes well beyond what is demanded of the state in the rule to curb carbon emissions from existing power plants. -
EPA Rejects Energy Sector Claim Of Utility ESPS Hindering EOR Activities
Apr 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is rejecting energy companies' claim that the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants will hinder enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide captured from utilities by inadvertently subjecting such activities to more onerous GHG reporting, saying nothing in the rule would prohibit such operations. -
Texas LNG Files For Port of Brownsville Export Project
Apr 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Texas LNG Brownsville LLC has filed at FERC for its 4 million tonne per annum (mtpa) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal proposed for a 625-acre site at the Port of Brownsville in Texas. -
Shippers Balk at Repurposing of Offshore System For LNG
Apr 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Shippers are protesting the proposed abandonment by sale of TC Offshore LLC's Grand Chenier System for reversal to serve a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal proposed for the Gulf of Mexico by Avocet LNG LLC. -
Wyoming Water-Gas Wells Study Draws U.S. EPA Criticism
Apr 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Strong concerns in recent years regarding natural gas drilling possibly contaminating local water supplies for the small town of Pavillion, WY, resurfaced recently as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office fired criticism at a Wyoming study last year that concluded gas development activity, including hydraulic fracturing (fracking), had nothing to do with local water problems. -
Trade Group Slams EPA's Voluntary Methane Program
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The oil and gas industry's trade group yesterday predicted that few exploration and production companies would join a new U.S. EPA voluntary program to reduce methane emissions. -
(ACC Mentioned) N.C.'s Coal Ash-Poisoned Wells: A Harbinger for Problems Ahead in Other States?
Apr 1, 2016 | The Institute for Southern Studies
By Sue Sturgis
Hundreds of well owners who live near Duke Energy's coal ash dumps across North Carolina have been left confused and worried by the McCrory administration's waffling over what constitutes dangerous levels of health-damaging contaminants found in their water. -
Colo. Governor Urges EPA to Halt Ozone Standard
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) yesterday said it would be "a great idea" for U.S. EPA to suspend the ozone standard adopted last fall, a statement that swiftly won praise from business organizations and derision from one environmental group. -
In the Energy World, Renewables Have Already Arrived
Apr 1, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kevin Haley
Many of us enjoy a good social media-inspired “Throw Back Thursday,” a time to revisit amusing photos or memories of a past age when we were young and naïve, so to speak. Not many of us take it quite as literally, however, as the Koch-backed Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) did recently, when they published an anti-renewable energy hit piece in The Hill titled “Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tennessee Chamber Names Bradley Jackson Interim President
Apr 1, 2016 | The Chattanoogan
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, announced Friday that Bradley Jackson has been named interim president of the organization. The Chamber is one of Tennessee’s oldest and largest business trade associations and serves as the Tennessee affiliate for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council and partners statewide with local chambers of commerce and economic development professionals.
Mr. Jackson, who has served as vice president of government affairs for the Chamber since 2007, is widely considered one of Tennessee’s strongest advocates for businesses and economic growth in the Tennessee Legislature, said officials. Corporate leaders and elected officials have relied on his policy advice and friendship for over a decade. Some of Mr. Jackson’s most important legislative successes on behalf of the business community include tort and workers’ compensation reform and business tax changes which many have cited as reasons for Tennessee’s improvement in business climate rankings. Prior to joining the Chamber, Mr. Jackson served in a variety of roles in the legislative and executive branches of government that include policy, budget and operational management.
"The Executive Board of the Tennessee Chamber is extremely grateful that Bradley has agreed to serve as our organization’s interim president,” said Chairman Greg Martz. “In times of economic uncertainty and political change, Bradley has been a steady hand that has earned the bipartisan respect of lawmakers and business leaders from all facets of industry. His acceptance of this position means that job creators from across the state can continue to expect the Tennessee Chamber to be their strongest voice for growth. The Executive Board has denoted his role as interim president through this transitional period, but we have full confidence in Bradley leading this organization for many years to come.”
“I am honored that the Executive Board has entrusted me with this position,” said Mr. Jackson. “I believe the work of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry over the years has been vital in making this state one of the best places in the nation to operate a business. Having been a part of this team for so long, I commend the entire staff at the Chamber for making successes possible. I look forward to continuing that success and focusing on new and innovative ways to engage the business community in our legislative process.”
Mr. Jackson succeeds Catherine Glover in this position, who after 25 years of service to business and industry in four states, will be retiring from government affairs and politics on Monday.
“Although leaving the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry was a bittersweet decision, I strongly believe that the board of directors’ choice of a successor in Bradley Jackson is a solid one,” said Ms. Glover. “Bradley has served the businesses of Tennessee diligently, and with his new role, will continue his passion to serve. I couldn’t be more proud, knowing that Bradley will bring the state chamber to the next level of success.”
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2016/4/1/321223/Tennessee-Chamber-Names-Bradley-Jackson.aspx
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tennessee Chamber Names Interim President
Apr 1, 2016 | Nashville Post
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry announced today its has named Bradley Jackson as interim president.
Jackson succeeds Catherine Glover, who os retiring April 4 after 25 years of service to business and industry in four states.
The chamber’s vice president of government affairs since 2007, Jackson has focused his legislative work on tort and workers’ compensation reform and on business tax changes.
Previously, Jackson served in various roles in the legislative and executive branches of state government, including those involving policy, budget and operational management.
“The Executive Board of the Tennessee Chamber is extremely grateful that Bradley has agreed to serve as our organization’s interim president,” Chairman Greg Martz said in the release. “In times of economic uncertainty and political change, Bradley has been a steady hand that has earned the bipartisan respect of lawmakers and business leaders from all facets of industry. His acceptance of this position means that job creators from across the state can continue to expect the Tennessee Chamber to be their strongest voice for growth.”
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry bills itself as one of Tennessee’s oldest and largest business trade associations. It serves as the Tennessee affiliate for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council. It partners statewide with local chambers of commerce and economic development professionals.
http://www.nashvillepost.com/business/people/article/20492705/tennessee-chamber-names-interim-president
-
(ACC Mentioned) BPA in Cans Comes Under Fire
Apr 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
Bisphenol A is back in the spotlight, this time in epoxy linings of metal cans, rather than in polycarbonate.
The state of California has opted to hold off on requiring specific labeling for canned goods that were set to begin May 11 amid fears that the labels could scare consumers, especially those with low-incomes.
Meanwhile, canned food companies are taking it upon themselves to deselect BPA.
California’s six-year battle over listing BPA as a toxic chemical ended in May 2015, when the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) scientific panel, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC), voted 7-0 to add BPA to the Proposition 65 list, contradicting recent pronouncements from scientists and the U.S., Canadian and European governments that the chemical is not a reproductive threat to humans. The plan was to require direct labeling on all products with BPA in the packaging.
Instead, retailers now must post more general warning signs about BPA at checkout counters.
California's Proposition 65, approved by voters there in 1986, requires businesses to notify citizens when a significant amount of about 800 chemicals are present in products, workplaces, public spaces or released into the environment. OEHHA administers the Prop 65 program, including managing the list of potentially harmful chemicals.
Though California has put a hold on the labeling requirement, companies are still feeling the anti-BPA backlash from advocacy groups and consumers.
San Francisco-based canned food giant Del Monte said in late March it would move away from BPA packaging beginning with this production season.
“Starting with the company’s fresh pack production in 2016, which begins in May and runs through October, all Del Monte fruit and tomato products, as well as nearly 100 percent of vegetable products found under the Del Monte brand, will convert to non-BPA linings,” the company said in a news release.
Campbell Soup Co. announced that it would completely transition to BPA-free cans by mid-2017, and was moving to cans with acrylic- or polyester-based linings in the U.S. and Canadian markets starting in March.
Meanwhile, six advocacy groups are calling on food retailers to eliminate BPA from all food packaging, and label all chemicals used in can liners after testing almost 200 food can linings for the chemical.
In a March 30 report, the Breast Cancer Fund, Campaign for Healthier Solutions, Clean Production Action, Ecology Center, Environmental Defence, and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families say two out of three cans they tested have BPA in the lining. The groups claim BPA is an endocrine disrupting chemical and contributes to a “host of harmful health effects including breast and prostate cancer, infertility, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, asthma and attention deficit disorder.”
The report also lists alternatives to BPA, already used in some cans — acrylic, oleoresin, polyester and PVC copolymers — though the coalition does not have stellar things to report on any of the alternatives, either.
The report contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority findings that BPA is safe for current food-contact applications and food packaging.
“BPA has been under attack for a long time,” said Steven Hentges of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council. “The product may shift but to some extent it’s what seen for years.”
He said that scientific studies repeatedly show that BPA is quickly metabolized and eliminated from the body and that it has an “unparalleled, multi-decade track record of safety and performance” on the market.
“Unless the laws of nature were to change tomorrow, the safety conclusions from today are not likely to change tomorrow,” Hentges said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160401/NEWS/160409975/bpa-in-cans-comes-under-fire
-
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. Launches Prop 65 Search Portal
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Companies will see increased disclosure of chemical information in California under state regulations taking effect today.
Under an update to California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Proposition 65, customers can more easily access information on chemicals at a public website, which launched this morning.
A related pending regulation to update information-sharing requirements for chemicals is expected to be finalized later this year, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Once that happens, companies will have two years to come into compliance.
For now, Delson said in an email, "We welcome input and feedback, but the website imposes no requirements on businesses."
The new website is meant to be a one-stop shop for the public seeking information about chemicals.
Consumers can search for chemical information by selecting certain product sectors or locations where the chemical may be present, or simply typing in the chemical's name.
The agency has moved forward with the rules over the strong objection of industry groups, which warned against an expansion of the program.
In a public comment submitted last year, Tim Shestek, the American Chemistry Council's senior director of state affairs, warned the actions "likely violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with respect to compelled speech principles."
The groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council, argued the agency lacked the authority under either Prop 65 or the California Administrative Procedure Act to post chemical information to the website without first notifying manufacturers.
The law "does not empower OEHHA to require manufacturers, producers, importers and distributors to provide it with information related to their products," the groups wrote.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/01/stories/1060034959
-
Supreme Court Mercury Ruling Affects TSCA Bill -- Professors
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers must avoid language in pending chemicals legislation similar to Clean Air Act provisions that were subject to a key ruling by the Supreme Court in 2015, law professors urged in a letter.
Writing to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the professors warned that the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Michigan v. EPA could bode poorly for provisions in a pending rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
The letter comes as House and Senate negotiators have been meeting to hash out details of two proposals, S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," and a House bill, H.R. 2576, the "TSCA Modernization Act." Both bills passed their respective chambers, but they contain significant differences in how they would modify U.S. EPA's authority to regulate chemicals.
The letter was signed by 31 law professors and two public-interest group representatives.
In the Michigan case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether EPA should have considered compliance costs before finalizing power plant emissions standards for mercury and other air toxics.
Industry groups, Michigan and other states argued that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, proposed under the Clean Air Act should have considered compliance costs because the law asked EPA to determine whether it was "appropriate and necessary" to move forward with the rule.
Last year, in a 5-4 decision written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the court ruled that the law's requirement that EPA issue "appropriate and necessary" regulations did not mean it had no obligation to consider cost (Greenwire, June 29, 2015).
"It is unreasonable," Scalia wrote, "to read an instruction to an administrative agency to determine whether 'regulation is appropriate and necessary' as an invitation to ignore cost."
Lawmakers' desire to update the 39-year-old chemicals law stems in large part from the existing law's requirement that EPA consider the cost of restricting an unsafe chemical.
In crafting chemical reform legislation, lawmakers broadly agree that EPA should not be required to consider cost when evaluating safety. In S. 697, lawmakers specified that EPA should craft "a standard that ensures, without taking into consideration cost or other nonrisk factors, that no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of use," including to the general public or a susceptible subgroup.
At the same time, the law professors argued, some language in the two bills echoes terms used in the Clean Air Act that led the Supreme Court to interpret the legislation as requiring the consideration of cost.
Should future TSCA legislation be interpreted in this way, it "could impose unintended requirements on the Environmental Protection Agency to consider costs before deciding whether to regulate a chemical," the letter said.
Though S. 697 does not direct EPA to take "appropriate and necessary" action, it includes several instances allowing EPA actions "as appropriate," which could let a court apply theMichigan precedent, the professors argued.
If a court interpreted the language at its broadest scope, it could mean EPA would have to consider costs at several points under S. 697, the letter said. This could include in deciding whether to prioritize a chemical for safety review, taking action against a new chemical deemed unlikely to meet the safety standard, or taking action to reduce the risk of an existing chemical found to be harmful.
Negotiators could mitigate the legal risk by excising uses of "as appropriate" from final legislation, the professors wrote.
Groups clash over CBI protections
Advocacy groups have also raised alarms over proposed changes to how EPA would treat confidential business information.
Speaking at the GlobalChem chemical regulatory conference in Washington, D.C., last week, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates President Larry Sloan said he sees protections for industry information and green chemistry as connected.
Ultimately, Sloan said, loosening protections against confidential business information is "working against the whole green chemistry initiative. You can't have one without the other."
In SOCMA's annual report, which it released in December, the group touted that it was "closely involved" in drafting the House bill, including by inserting provisions that would strengthen protections for confidential business information over current law.
In a blog post, Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and a supporter of the Senate bill, said SOCMA wanted to protect "the ability of companies to black out the names of chemicals when health and safety studies they submit on a chemical are released to the public."
Writing on the trade group's website, Bill Allmond, SOCMA's vice president for government and public relations, disputed the characterization. He said that under the House legislation, EPA would still release "generic chemical names and health and safety data" to the public.
In response, Denison wrote that EDF did not seek to weaken protections against revealing proprietary chemical process information, but opposed letting a company keep secret chemical information in health and safety studies even when it would not reveal trade secrets.
"SOCMA has compromised substantially to get a bipartisan bill that Congress can pass," Allmond wrote. "After many years of the 'my way or the highway' approach under which previous Congresses addressed this issue, all stakeholders learned that approach to TSCA reform leads only to stalemate."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/01/stories/1060034969
-
TSCA Reform Could Boost EPA's Push For 'Next Generation' Enforcement
Apr 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's push to implement "next generation" enforcement is increasing the risk that companies may face agency enforcement or private litigation for potential Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) violations, says an industry attorney, who argues that efforts to reform TSCA could further increase companies' risk of such actions.
Sam Boxerman, of Sidley Austin LLP, told the chemical sector's GlobalChem conference March 24 that EPA's recent shift toward next generation compliance, which focuses more on data than inspections, is collecting information EPA could use to target facilities for enforcement and provide backing for private parties' toxic tort claims.
"The more of this information that is required to be collected and provided, the more you facilitate the ability of the agency to pursue additional enforcement," Boxerman said. "And there is a lot of concern about providing information that would be accessible to the public and tort plaintiffs."
Additionally, Boxerman said a reformed TSCA would likely bring new reporting and record-keeping requirements that would further increase the pool of available data. The two bills that a conference committee is seeking to craft into compromise legislation also contain provisions that would increase the agency's authority to require testing through administrative orders, though to varying degrees, he said.
Boxerman also said, in response to an audience member's question, that a provision on the table for compromise reform legislation would allow states to keep civil penalties, creating a financial incentive for increased enforcement.
The concerns build on industry push back last year following a January 2015 memo from EPA Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles to the agency's regional enforcement officials. The memo called for inclusion of next generation strategies in settlement agreements in enforcement cases as part of the agency's broad "Innovative Enforcement" efforts.
The announcement drew criticism from an industry lawyer and a former EPA official who argued such changes should be implemented through rulemaking or guidance rather than individual settlement deals. Next generation approaches that seek to cut enforcement costs have also prompted outcry from environmentalists who warn they will reduce EPA's ability to identify and prosecute violators.
In his remarks to GlobalChem, Boxerman said EPA has started incorporating next generation compliance requirements in settlements negotiated under the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and suggested the agency would likely start imposing similar requirements as part of TSCA enforcement efforts.
Some EPA regional officials have also started requiring next generation information gathering tools through administrative orders, Boxerman said, an approach he argued inappropriately skirts the rulemaking process and called "essentially regulating through enforcement."
TSCA Enforcement
Gregory Sullivan, acting director of the Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division in EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement, confirmed Boxerman's suggestion that EPA will likely seek next generation requirements in future settlements of TSCA enforcement cases.
But Sullivan balked at Boxerman's assertion the agency might use administrative orders to impose new requirements, noting that agency staff are too busy enforcing against TSCA violations to impose new additional requirements.
The discussion on EPA's TSCA enforcement comes as House and Senate lawmakers are trying to craft compromise legislation to overhaul the 1976 law in order to give EPA new authority to address risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace. The TSCA reform effort is also seeking to eliminate legal hurdles in current law that have hindered the agency's ability to restrict dangerous chemicals, such as its inability to ban asbestos.
Boxerman told the chemical sector conference that a reformed TSCA would likely bring added enforcement concerns. New reporting and record-keeping requirements would further increase access to company data for regulators and the public, he said.
"It's hard to know until we have final legislation," Boxerman said, but greater accessibility to data "could result in either more aggressive [enforcement] or more opportunities for the agency to assert its enforcement authority."
Both bills passed last year also would expand EPA authority to require testing through administrative orders. The Senate bill, S. 697, would give EPA expanded authority for issuing administrative orders for purposes including to require manufacturers and processors to conduct testing in support of safety assessments, Boxerman said. The House bill, H.R. 2576, also would give EPA authority to require testing, though to a lesser degree, he added.
In response to an audience member's question, Boxerman said a provision on the table for compromise legislation would allow states to collect civil penalties from enforcement, potentially spurring state enforcement by creating a financial incentive. In years past, disputes between Republicans and Democrats on whether to protect state enforcement programs or prohibit them have stalled TSCA reform efforts.
Agency Inspections
Meanwhile, Sullivan, of EPA, said that given the wide variety of facilities that could potentially violate the law, agency enforcement staff seek to leverage inspections conducted under other statutes to facilitate enforcement and compliance under TSCA. Enforcement officials also work with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to prioritize enforcement efforts on substances with high toxicity and exposure potential, he said.
Sullivan backed next generation enforcement, saying that combining those monitoring technologies with independent third-party audits gives companies the chance to measure their compliance and fix problems without facing additional enforcement.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/tsca-reform-could-boost-epas-push-next-generation-enforcement
-
EPA Targets Hydrofluorocarbons
Apr 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The Environmental Protection Agency is clearing the way for additional chemicals to replace hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potent greenhouse gases that are used as refrigerants.
An EPA proposal released in late March “would reduce the use and emissions of some of the most harmful HFCs, which are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide,” in terms of their global warming potential, says agency Administrator Gina McCarthy. As part of its effort to combat human-caused climate change, the Obama Administration is promoting a global phaseout of HFCs.
EPA’s proposal would also allow use of safer, more climate-friendly alternatives to HFCs. For instance, it would clear the way for more uses of hydrofluoroolefin-1234yf, a substance gaining popularity in automobile air conditioners as an alternative for HFC-134a. HFO-1234yf has less than one thousandth of the global warming potential of HFC-134a. The proposal would allow use of the HFO-1234yf in heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans sold in the U.S.
EPA’s proposal would halt the use of HFCs and methylene chloride for blowing plastic into certain types of closed-cell foams. The move is intended to dissuade companies from considering methylene chloride as an alternative when they switch away from HFCs, the agency says.
Methylene chloride, which EPA regulates as a toxic air pollutant, has a low global warming potential. The agency says its potential for depleting stratospheric ozone is “considered negligibly small.” However, EPA adds, “Recent research indicates that emissions of methylene chloride from multiple industrial sources have been increasing.” This could impact the ozone layer (Nat. Geosci. 2015, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2363).
Under the proposal, EPA would also allow use of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP) in fire suppression equipment on aircraft that previously relied on halon 1211 or halon 1301. Both halons have high potentials for global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion. According to the proposal, 2-BTP has very low global warming and ozone depletion potentials.
In addition, EPA would allow use of propane as a refrigerant in new commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature equipment. The proposal, however, would restrict other hydrocarbon refrigerants. For example, EPA would halt the use of propylene and refrigerant-443A, which is a blend of propylene, propane, and isobutane, in new residential heat pumps and air conditioning systems.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i14/EPA-targets-hydrofluorocarbons.html
-
Lawmakers, Health Groups Line Up Behind Embattled EPA Rule
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A variety of Clean Power Plan supporters are coming out of the woodwork this week as deadlines approach for federal court filings.
Today marks the last day parties can submit "friend of the court" briefs to back U.S. EPA's embattled climate rule, which is under fire from many states, utilities and industry groups that see it as an illegal overreach. Among EPA's latest allies: health organizations, business groups and more than 200 current and former members of Congress.
Democrats on Capitol Hill steered the congressional push to support the Clean Power Plan. Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) led more than 200 current and former members of Congress -- including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders -- in a brief that strikes back at core arguments against the rule.
They focused on the intent of Congress when it passed the Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments. EPA's opponents argue that the agency is twisting the law to back "unprecedented" authority to regulate state energy portfolios, beyond the Clean Air Act's design. But current and former members of Congress signing onto yesterday's brief say they know better than anyone what Congress' intent was when crafting the law.
"Congress enacted the CAA to wage a 'war against air pollution,' and it conferred broad authority on EPA to help EPA achieve the act's broad objectives," the group said in its brief, noting that the Clean Air Act was designed as a tool for the agency to address both existing and theretofore unknown hazards.
The group includes current members of Congress, as well as retired members who were in office as early as the 1970s. Many were in Congress during the debate over the contentious 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which have fueled much of the legal battle over EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Power Plan. The group is mostly made up of Democrats, with a few Republican signatories, including Sen. David Durenberger of Minnesota, who served from 1978 to 1995, and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who served from 1983 to 2007.
Their brief is a direct response to a filing from more than 200 lawmakers on the opposite side of the debate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) led a separate brief challenging the rule, calling it "contrary to the policy choices made by Congress" (Greenwire, Feb. 23).Health, business groups
Leaders of several health groups previewed their brief yesterday, noting that their goal is to underscore the Clean Power Plan's public health rationale by emphasizing the adverse human health effects of climate change. According to Dr. Mary Rice, who works on environmental health issues for the American Thoracic Society, the brief synthesizes scientific literature about both prospective and present health effects of climate change, including heat-related illnesses, respiratory and cardiovascular illness from poor air quality, and allergies.
"The Clean Power Plan, when fully implemented, will help address these global threats as well as carbon emissions from approximately one-third of all U.S. greenhouse gas production," said Dr. Jennifer Lowry, the American Academy of Pediatrics' environmental health chairwoman, during a press call. "The Clean Power Plan will also generate near-term health benefits by reducing other pollutants that negatively affect children, including particulate matter and the precursors to ground-level ozone, which exacerbates asthma.
"Any further delays in implementing this critical policy will hinder our ability to make much-needed progress and protect these children from climate change," she added.
Surili Patel, senior program manager for environmental health at the American Public Health Association, also noted that health effects from climate change disproportionately affect underserved communities. The health groups will submit their brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today.
Business groups also voiced their support for the Clean Power Plan this week, calling it the "strongest action to date for addressing climate change." The coalition, which will file a brief today, includes the American Sustainable Business Council, the U.S. Black Chambers and several local business associations from across the country.
"The U.S. Black Chambers supports the Clean Power Plan because it creates new opportunities for individuals and businesses to run their companies more efficiently while sustaining the environment," President and CEO Ron Busby said in a statement yesterday. "The Clean Power Plan is a step in the right direction and it provides incentives to reduce carbon emissions, which ultimately leads to a healthier environment and healthier communities."
South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Frank Knapp Jr. took a shot at other business groups that have lined up behind challengers of EPA's climate rule.
"Business organizations that oppose the Clean Power Plan are doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry," said Knapp, who is also co-chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council, in a statement. "Real world experience tells us that implementing the Plan will create jobs and grow our economy. Its decentralized approach allows each state to decide how best to reduce carbon pollution. It protects our nation's economy from the disastrous effects of unrestrained climate change -- including the dire consequences to my state's tourism economy."
Sixteen former state energy and environmental leaders filed their amicus brief yesterday, arguing that the Clean Power Plan "is designed to work within existing state energy regulatory systems." The group includes former Department of Energy official Sue Tierney, who previously served as Massachusetts' secretary of environmental affairs, and former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, who previously served as general counsel for the Nevada Public Utilities Commission.
Former EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly also filed a brief yesterday, calling the Clean Power Plan a "lawful exercise of EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to address the unprecedented challenge of global climate change" (Greenwire, March 31).
Many more supporters of the rule are expected to file briefs today. EPA submitted its own defense of the rule Monday, and intervenors in the lawsuit filed Tuesday (EnergyWire, March 29; EnergyWire, March 30). Opponents of the rule have a chance to respond in two weeks.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/01/stories/1060034925
-
Va. Governor Pressed to Go Beyond EPA Rule
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Environmental groups are asking Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe to develop a compliance regime for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that goes well beyond what is demanded of the state in the rule to curb carbon emissions from existing power plants.
The groups want the implementation plan that Virginia eventually submits to cover both existing and new fossil-fueled power plants, effectively blending the requirement of the Clean Power Plan with another EPA rule, issued the same day, to control CO2 emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants.
In effect, they want McAuliffe (D) to craft a plan that relies chiefly on wind and solar for future generation and not the 9,000 to 10,000 megawatts of new natural-gas-fired capacity envisioned by Dominion Resources Inc., which owns the dominant electric utility in the state.
In a letter yesterday, the groups praised McAuliffe for his "steadfast leadership" on the Clean Power Plan.
The governor has directed state agencies to move ahead on developing compliance scenarios, making it one of 19 states that are continuing to work on the rule even after the Supreme Court stayed the regulation while it is under review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The groups asked for a Virginia plan that would "result in a net, aggregate reduction in CO2 emissions from Virginia power plants, covering both new and existing facilities."
Signing the letter were 350.org, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for Biological Diversity, Environment America, NextGen Climate America and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
McAuliffe has repeatedly said he supports the EPA effort to reduce carbon emissions, noted Glen Besa, director of the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter.
"We're pushing to make sure [McAuliffe] means a reduction in net, aggregate carbon, not a reduction in carbon intensity. If you're reducing carbon intensity and at the same time increasing total net carbon by 60 percent, you're really not doing what you need to do to address climate change," he said, referring to Dominion's plan for new gas-fired generation.
In a memo distributed to state lawmakers in March, the Sierra Club said Dominion's plans significantly increase the utility's "current emissions of approximately 24 million tons of CO2 to 40 million tons of CO2 in 2040" and produce that 60 percent increase.
"In contrast, by investing in efficiency, solar and wind, Virginia can comply with the Clean Power Plan, reduce electricity bills and actually cut total carbon pollution," the memo said.
Besa said his groups and others worry that Virginia's strategy "could result in significant increases of carbon and still be compliant with the Clean Power Plan."
Asked about the group's demand of McAuliffe, Dominion spokesman David Botkins said the company "and numerous other stakeholders are working very closely with the commonwealth on a workable compliance plan."
McAuliffe's office did not return a call seeking comment on the letter.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/01/stories/1060034914
-
EPA Rejects Energy Sector Claim Of Utility ESPS Hindering EOR Activities
Apr 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is rejecting energy companies' claim that the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants will hinder enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide captured from utilities by inadvertently subjecting such activities to more onerous GHG reporting, saying nothing in the rule would prohibit such operations.
The agency is responding to concerns raised in an opening brief and a separate non-binding statement of issues filed by EOR operators in litigation over the power plant rule, testing how EPA will apply its GHG reporting mandates to joint EOR and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects. A coalition of industry groups says the existing source performance standards (ESPS) rule triggers "far more burdensome" reporting.
In a March 28 response brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the ESPS suit, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., EPA rejects claims that the rule will prohibit EOR using captured carbon dioxide (CO2).
“These requirements do not 'functionally prohibit facilities from using CO2 in enhanced oil recovery,' i.e., by injecting CO2 into an oil reservoir to increase production,” according to the agency. EPA says the cost of compliance with the ESPS is “reasonable” and will not increase permitting or liability for EOR operators.
EOR operators fault how the agency opted to apply its GHG reporting mandates in terms of compliance with the final ESPS for facilities that engage in injection of CO2, including EOR activities. Industry officials have warned the mandates impose massive, costly requirements that will ultimately impede EOR operations.
EOR operators have historically reported their GHGs under the less-onerous Clean Air Act "subpart UU" mandates in accordance with Class II wells under EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) permitting program.
The energy industry in its briefing in the ESPS suit argues the rule effectively requires EOR operators using CO2 from utilities to comply with the requirements under "subpart RR," which mandates more-comprehensive monitoring plans that are subject to EPA approval, oversight and potential revisions.
In a Feb. 19 brief signed by a host of states, including Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana; power companies including Georgia Power Company, Buckeye Power, American Public Power Association; and others, petitioners argue that the rule "functionally prohibits facilities from using CO2 in enhanced oil recovery.”
The EOR company Denbury in a separate Feb. 22 statement of issues asked the court to consider the question of whether requiring EOR operators to comply with the subpart RR requirements -- which they argue were intended for "long term containment of CO2" -- is arbitrary and capricious given that EOR activities are excluded from the sources listed in subpart RR.
EPA's Defense
But EPA in the response brief says, “Contrary to Petitioner's claims, 'there is also no a priori [or presupposed] restriction on commingling CO2 from different sources.'”
The energy sector has long raised concerns that recent policies that affect CCS -- including EPA's new source performance standards climate rule for future power plants, and a Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) waiver for operations injecting CO2 in SDWA Class VI wells for CCS -- would create new liability for commingling of CO2 used in CCS.
EPA's brief also responds to an argument advanced in the energy producers' brief that because the GHG reporting requirement was not floated in the proposed rule, its inclusion in the final ESPS is unlawful.
The agency argues that “[p]etitioners had adequate notice” of the requirement, saying that the final rule indicates that while CCS is not part of the rule's best system of emissions reductions, it is left as an option for compliance that sources can use, when conducted in accordance with subpart RR.
The agency took comments on CCS and directed stakeholders to its new source performance standards for power plants for “additional discussion,” which the brief says “expressly proposed” that injection of captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery would trigger Subpart RR reporting instead of Subpart UU. “Petitioners knew this,” EPA says.
EPA's brief also appears to address concerns that not only are the Subpart RR requirements not overly burdensome but they also fall short of more stringent permitting and potential RCRA liability concerns that EOR operators raised concerns about in the context of other rulemakings related to CCS.
“Rather, compliance with Subpart RR is of reasonable cost, does not change an oil recovery well's permitting status, and does not cause injected CO2 to be classified as waste,” EPA says in the brief.
RCRA Waiver
Industry groups unsuccessfully challenged EPA's 2014 RCRA waiver for CCS in litigation in the D.C. Circuit, in which they warned that the waiver could trigger potential enforcement actions and citizens suit liability under the waste law and possibly hinder EOR operations and other types of CO2 injection that do not use Class VI permits.
The court decided in Carbon Sequestration Council (CSC), et al. v. EPA to scrap the case over standing -- a threshold requirement for pursuing litigation -- meaning the D.C. Circuit did not address the merits of industry's challenge to the waiver. As a result, the decision did not weigh in on whether CO2 that is sequestered qualifies as a solid waste under RCRA, and also does not address the merits of the waiver.
Meanwhile, EPA last year dropped a controversial plan that would have subjected EOR wells to strict Class VI SDWA permits intended for CCS operations rather than more relaxed permits for Class II oil and gas activities following industry warnings that the plan would have stymied the sector that is expected to provide a major market for CO2 emissions from industrial sources.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-energy-sector-claim-utility-esps-hindering-eor-activities
-
Texas LNG Files For Port of Brownsville Export Project
Apr 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Texas LNG Brownsville LLC has filed at FERC for its 4 million tonne per annum (mtpa) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal proposed for a 625-acre site at the Port of Brownsville in Texas.
The terminal would be fed via a yet-to-be-constructed intrastate pipeline accessing gas supplies from the Agua Dulce Hub about 150 miles to the north of Brownsville. The pipeline would potentially serve other LNG export terminals as well as industrial and power generation facilities and export markets in Mexico, Texas LNG told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [CP16-116].
The Agua Dulce Hub interconnects with interstate and intrastate pipelines such as Texas Eastern Transmission, Tennessee Gas Pipeline, facilities of Energy Transfer Partners and Enterprise Products Partners, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line.
Texas LNG said it would not own the proposed pipeline from Agua Dulce to its planned facility. It is in talks with several intrastate pipeline companies "with the objective of securing a long-term agreement for firm pipeline transportation of the full quantity of natural gas required to supply" the project.
The LNG project would consist of two trains of 2 mtpa capacity each. The first phase would be constructed upon receipt of required approvals, and the second would be built upon receipt of sufficient expressions of customer demand, Texas LNG said. Each phase would be able to process about 0.309 Bcf/d of natural gas. The first phase would include a storage tank and a berth to accommodate a single LNG carrier. The second phase would include another storage tank and infrastructure necessary to connect it with the operating first phase facilities.
Free trade agreement country export authorization was granted for the project last year (see Daily GPI, Sept. 25, 2015). "Texas LNG anticipates that the sources of natural gas will include supplies from various producing regions, including conventional gas and recent shale gas discoveries in the Rocky Mountain, Midcontinent and Permian regions," the U.S. Department of Energy said at the time [15-62-LNG]. "Texas LNG asserts that shale plays including the Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Barnett, Floyd-Neal/Conasauga shale plays are estimated to contain 553 Tcf of recoverable natural gas."
The Texas LNG project is not the only one proposed for the Port of Brownsville.
NextDecade LLC last year made a prefiling request at FERC for its Rio Grande Liquefied Natural Gas terminal proposed for the Port of Brownsville and associated Rio Bravo Pipeline project (seeDaily GPI, March 23, 2015; March 9, 2015). Exelon Generation unit Annova LNG LLC made a pre-filing review request last year for its proposed Brownsville, too (see Daily GPI, March 11, 2015).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105892-texas-lng-files-for-port-of-brownsville-export-project
-
Shippers Balk at Repurposing of Offshore System For LNG
Apr 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Shippers are protesting the proposed abandonment by sale of TC Offshore LLC's Grand Chenier System for reversal to serve a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal proposed for the Gulf of Mexico by Avocet LNG LLC.
The facilities in question were previously abandoned by sale from ANR Pipeline Co. to affiliate TC Offshore [CP11-543] (see Daily GPI, July 22, 2012); however, at that time their jurisdictional function didn't change. The recently proposed abandonment of Grand Cheniere by TC Offshore to Avocet would see the facilities taken out of their current service and reversed to feed Avocet's proposed offshore LNG terminal, making them non-jurisdictional to FERC.
Avocet is a unit of Fairwood Peninsula Energy Corp., as is Delfin LNG, which has its own offshore LNG project that would rely on the abandonment and repurposing of different existing pipeline infrastructure (the High Island Offshore System). This also is being challenged in a separate docket at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [CP16-20] (see Daily GPI, Dec. 23, 2015; Dec. 2, 2015; July 1, 2015).
In the TC Offshore case, Indicated Shippers are Apache Corp., ExxonMobil Gas & Power Marketing Co., and Fieldwood Energy LLC. Also intervening in separate filings are Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Anadarko Energy Services Co., Kinetica Partners LLC, and the Sierra Club, which is representing, again, its broad opposition to LNG exports. (Chevron U.S.A., Apache, ExxonMobil Gas & Power Marketing, and Fieldwood also filed to intervene in the High Island Offshore proceeding related to Delfin's project. The ExxonMobil unit and Fieldwood also are protesting Indicated Shippers in this docket.)
In their TC Offshore protest [CP16-78], Indicated Shippers cite the precedent of the ultimate denial of Northern Natural Gas Co.'s proposal to abandon its Matagorda Offshore Pipeline System (MOPS) because it was "underutilized and uneconomic" and shippers were only using interruptible service [CP10-82] (see Daily GPI, July 6, 2013). "The Commission properly denied that application, finding that abandonment was not in the public interest because Northern failed to demonstrate that there were cost-effective alternatives for all of the shippers using MOPS," Indicated Shippers said. "The considerations in this case are identical."
Indicated Shippers argue that TC Offshore failed to make its case by not addressing impacts on customers whose services would be terminated. They said that while TC Offshore argued that last year only 20 shippers only took interruptible service and it has no obligation to provide continuity of service to such shippers, this is not relevant.
"This is because the Grand Chenier System, like many offshore pipelines, has excess capacity, such that shippers need not contract for firm service in order to keep their gas flowing or meet their transportation requirements," Indicated Shippers said. "The Commission has recognized that the economic choice for shippers, in such circumstances, is to take interruptible service. However, TC Offshore erred in assuming that this fact, alone, justifies its application under Section 7(b) of the [Natural Gas Act]."
Further, TC Offshore acknowledged that shippers, such as Fieldwood, have production that is not connected to any pipeline alternative, making them captive to Grand Chenier, Indicated Shippers said. "...[I]n today's low commodity price environment, it is not likely to be economically feasible for a captive shipper to construct new facilities to connect to an alternative, and then to pay additional transportation and/or processing fees to use that alternative to move its production to onshore markets."
According to TC Offshore's abandonment filing, "natural gas enters the Grand Chenier System from the West Cameron [WC] Area at four receipt points, located at WC Block 100, WC Block 149, WC Block 165, and WC Block 167. In total, 20 different producer shippers utilized the Grand Cheniere System in 2015, all under interruptible transportation service agreements."
All of the interruptible service agreements have month-to-month contract terms, TC Offshore said. "Gas flows from the West Cameron Area through the Grand Chenier System have declined from an average of 86,000 Dth/d in 2013 to an average of less than 48,000 Dth/d in 2015, which represents less than 7% of the Grand Chenier System design capacity of 748,170 Dth/d. For the past three years, capacity utilization has averaged less than 10%."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105897-shippers-balk-at-repurposing-of-offshore-system-for-lng
-
Wyoming Water-Gas Wells Study Draws U.S. EPA Criticism
Apr 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Strong concerns in recent years regarding natural gas drilling possibly contaminating local water supplies for the small town of Pavillion, WY, resurfaced recently as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office fired criticism at a Wyoming study last year that concluded gas development activity, including hydraulic fracturing (fracking), had nothing to do with local water problems.
"Several of the conclusory statements in the report regarding fluid movement and potential sources of constituents would benefit from more robust supporting data and information and a discussion of uncertainties," Martin Hestmark, assistant regional EPA administration in Denver, wrote to Todd Parfitt, director of Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Hestmark hit at various technical details that EPA found missing.
EPA suggests that there were too many uncertainties surrounding health concerns tied to the quality of the domestic well water for Pavillion. EPA wants more discussion of the uncertainties in the report, said Hestmark, whose staff has critiqued the state's report, "Pavillion Area Domestic Water Wells Draft Final Report and Palatability Study."
EPA contends that the state should acknowledge that there are limitations to "reaching definitive conclusions about potential health risks" because of an inherent information gap left because nine of 19 organic constituents found in the water supplies don't have health-related analyses completed on them.
Contrary to earlier federal reports, Wyoming's DEQ concluded that fracking fluids were not a factor at shallow depths intersecting groundwater supplies at Pavillion, according to a draft final state DEQ report (see Shale Daily, Dec. 22, 2015).
While both inorganic and organic compounds were found above acceptable levels for drinking water, none of the fluids associated with fracking were found to have migrated upward to shallower depths, the state report concluded. Wyoming found that there were levels of pollutants in the water that exceeded health-based comparison values, but "limited supporting evidence" that all of the constituents were present historically and weren't coming from gas wells in the area.
While DEQ concluded that the groundwater was generally suitable for domestic use, it also acknowledged the exceedances, noting that for the most part they are related to "naturally occurring dissolved salts, metals and radionuclides."
EPA regional staff has deconstructed the Wyoming DEQ report, and in one instance asked that a conclusion attributed to EPA asserting that most of the water supply wells did not have apparent health concerns be "qualified or omitted." The EPA observation was made in a public hearing reporting Phase I results of the federal agency's well testing in Pavillion (see Shale Daily, Dec. 9, 2011).
EPA subsequently backed away from the gas well link to the water contamination conclusion, and the state took the lead two years ago in conducting further tests through DEQ (see Shale Daily, June 24, 2013). In its latest analysis, regional EPA staff said that "there is little historical evidence in existence to support the state's argument that the pollution is naturally occurring."
Hestmark said that in recent years, since DEQ took the lead in the investigation of Pavillion water quality, the federal agency has "provided technical resources and assistance" to support the state's ongoing efforts.
In Hestmark's letter, EPA again questioned the state’s contention that "almost certainly" part of the methane observed in the local water supply wells was naturally occurring and not the result of gas production. "This conclusion appears to be based solely on limited data," he said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105903-wyoming-water-gas-wells-study-draws-us-epa-criticism
-
Trade Group Slams EPA's Voluntary Methane Program
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The oil and gas industry's trade group yesterday predicted that few exploration and production companies would join a new U.S. EPA voluntary program to reduce methane emissions.
The American Petroleum Institute said companies have little incentive to join the program because of several high-profile regulations that are imminent and because companies are already taking voluntary steps to reduce emissions.
"The fact is, we're already reducing emissions through innovative technologies," API Executive Vice President Louis Finkel told reporters, "but we're not going to make significant investments to try to engage with the agency when we don't know what the regulatory regime will be."
API also pushed back against EPA's draft greenhouse gas inventory that it says the agency is using to justify regulations on existing oil and gas operations that go beyond the voluntary emission program.
Under EPA's Methane Challenge Program launched Wednesday, companies commit to using best management practices, such as replacing old infrastructure, to reduce emissions. They'll report progress annually to EPA, and the agency will post information on a public website.
EPA says 41 companies have committed to joining the new program as founding partners. Obama administration officials touted the program as a step toward achieving the country's methane reduction goals (Greenwire, March 30).
But the membership list mostly includes utility companies with natural gas interests, not firms involved in exploration and production.
"The idea that we're going to wave around a bunch of utility companies for participation in a voluntary program with an agency that can't regulate them is a very different scenario" than getting buy-in from the oil and gas industry, Finkel said.
Howard Feldman, API senior director of regulatory and scientific policy, said the trade group is not specifically directing companies to stay away from the methane challenge program. But he warned that it could lead to more paperwork and big investments.
"In light of the regulatory climate that people find themselves in right now," Feldman said, "to take a step and make another commitment someplace for something that may take extra work and have extra cost, and not provide any additional benefit because the companies are taking steps in and of themselves -- it's a business decision that each company has to make."
EPA is poised to finalize a suite of regulations this spring that seek to limit emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds from new sources in the oil and gas industry. The Bureau of Land Management also recently proposed a rule that would limit methane emissions from roughly 100,000 oil and gas wells on federal and tribal lands.
In an agreement with Canada, the Obama administration announced last month that EPA would also begin a rulemaking to reduce methane emissions from existing oil and gas equipment.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said in several recent public appearances that the agency's draft greenhouse gas inventory shows methane emissions from oil and gas operations are significantly higher than previously estimated. EPA revised its 2013 estimates of methane emissions from the industry up 27 percent (Greenwire, Feb. 24).
"The data confirm that we can and must do more on methane," McCarthy told an oil and gas industry audience in Houston.
But the industry argues its methane emissions have been decreasing, despite what the inventory shows. In comments submitted to the agency last week, API said industry reported emissions from more equipment components in 2013 than in previous years.
"The trend is clearly there. We are reducing emissions," Feldman said.
Environmentalists agree with EPA that the data show a new regulatory regime over existing oil and gas operations is needed.
Environmental groups further argue that, because of low participation rates in EPA's voluntary programs, the United States will be unable to reach the Obama administration's goal of reducing the sector's methane emissions without rules covering existing sources. The administration has a goal of reducing emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025 compared to 2012 levels.
Without rules covering existing operations, the United States will fall short of that goal by 75 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, according to a recent report by the Clean Air Task Force (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
The American Petroleum Institute believes that the Obama administration's goal is arbitrary and that the 2012 baseline was meant to make it harder for companies to achieve it.
"It was not based on soundness. It was not based on feasibility, not based on cost-effectiveness," Feldman said. "It was a number that the administration put out."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/01/stories/1060034935
-
(ACC Mentioned) N.C.'s Coal Ash-Poisoned Wells: A Harbinger for Problems Ahead in Other States?
Apr 1, 2016 | The Institute for Southern Studies
By Sue Sturgis
Hundreds of well owners who live near Duke Energy's coal ash dumps across North Carolina have been left confused and worried by the McCrory administration's waffling over what constitutes dangerous levels of health-damaging contaminants found in their water.
A contaminant of particular concern is hexavalent chromium, which has been linked to cancer when ingested in drinking water.
Of the 360 wells North Carolina health officials tested last year, 330 exceeded standards for one or more contaminants. Of those, 21 had elevated hexavalent chromium levels, while another 90 had elevated levels of hexavalent chromium and vanadium, a chemical linked to blood problems and neurological effects.
But those same state officials recently said the levels are safe after all. Duke Energy is now making plans to cut off deliveries of bottled water, leaving affected families wondering what to do. The company denies that its ash pits are responsible for the groundwater contamination.
Deepening the affected well owners' sense of uncertainty, a recent Charlotte Observer investigation found that the state's health and environmental departments fought for months over acceptable levels for the contaminants. The environmental agency argued the standards health officials were using were too stringent, and its position eventually prevailed.
Meanwhile, the Winston-Salem Journal found that administrative staff with the two agencies are "overriding their own experts as they try to explain why they are lifting some of the do-not-drink warnings."
Add to those revelations the longstanding concerns about Gov. Pat McCrory's (R) unusually close ties to Duke Energy, his campaign's generous support from the politically powerful company, and his gentle handling of its lawbreaking behavior, and it's not hard to understand people's distrust.
"This makes me very afraid for my son and myself," said Debra Baker, an affected well owner who lives next to Duke's Allen plant in Belmont, North Carolina. "I feel like this decision is just another slap in the face from regulators who are supposed to be protecting us."
The predicament facing the North Carolina well owners shows what can happen in the absence of clear federal regulations, when it's left to states to police industries that exercise outsized political power over state government.
And because North Carolina is ahead of the curve nationally in confronting the legacy of pollution from coal ash dumpsites thanks to a state law passed in the wake of Duke Energy's 2014 Dan River coal ash spill, what's happening there may be a harbinger of what's to come for other historically coal-powered communities across the South and nation.
Chemical industry delayed action on toxic chromium in drinking water
The controversy over well water safety near North Carolina's coal ash dumpsites stems from shortcomings with two different federal regulatory efforts: one to set safe drinking water standards for hexavalent chromium, and the other to set rules for safer disposal of coal ash.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting enforceable standards for health-damaging contaminants in water supplies. In 1991, it released a standard for total chromium, including both the toxic hexavalent and less-toxic trivalent forms, of 100 parts per billion (ppb). Nearly all of the chromium that leaches from coal ash is the toxic hexavalent form.
Since then, evidence of the dangers of hexavalent chromium have mounted, as dramatized in the 2000 film "Erin Brockovich" about a law clerk who held utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric liable for contaminating a California town's water supply with the chemical. Pressure has been building for regulators to act.
It appeared progress was being made in 2008, when a long-term animal study by the National Toxicology Program suggested that hexavalent chromium can cause cancer in humans if ingested. Taking the new information into account, the EPA released a draft scientific assessment of the chemical for review and comment in 2010 and was expected to announce its findings the following year.
But then the chemical industry intervened. The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical giants including BASF, Dow and ExxonMobil, urged the EPA to delay issuing its findings. In February 2012 the EPA announced that it wouldn't release the findings for at least another four years. They still have not been released.
Meanwhile, following extensive study, California adopted a public health goal for hexavalent chromium in drinking water of just 0.02 ppb — 5,000 times lower than the federal limit for total chromium.
In the absence of a clear federal standard for hexavalent chromium specifically, North Carolina regulators have struggled to set limits to protect well owners near coal ash dumpsites. State epidemiologists and toxicologists consulted with officials at the state Department of Environmental Quality and initially decided on a level that would put someone's lifetime cancer risk at no more than 1 in 1 million. For hexavalent chromium, that translates to 0.07 ppb.
Consequently, hundreds of well owners living near Duke Energy coal ash pits received letters from state health officials last spring warning them not to drink their water. They included Gail Johnston, whose well water contained hexavalent chromium at 4.8 ppb — more than 68 times that standard.
But Johnston and scores of other well owners recently got another letter from state officials lifting the do-not-drink warnings. In justifying the move, Tom Reeder, North Carolina's assistant environmental secretary, said the 0.07 ppb screening level was a "very cautious recommendation" and noted that bottled water is allowed to have up to 100 ppb of total chromium.
But that claim obscures the fact that total chromium and hexavalent chromium present dramatically different health risks. Drinking water with hexavalent chromium at 100 ppb would give a person a 1 in 700 lifetime risk of getting cancer — a risk level the EPA has deemed unacceptable in other circumstances.
Clean Water for North Carolina called the state's reversal "an outrage."
"Why are officials disregarding the recommendations of the professional toxicologists and epidemiologists on their staff, whose job is to understand the science and use it to protect public health?" the group asked.
Utilities blocked strict federal coal ash rules
The chaos over drinking water safety near North Carolina's coal ash dumpsites can also be blamed on rules for coal ash disposal that the EPA adopted in the wake of the 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash disaster, when a dam burst at a massive impoundment in Eastern Tennessee and spilled more than a billion gallons of the waste into a residential community and the Clinch and Emory rivers.
The EPA considered two approaches to regulating coal ash following the TVA disaster: a stricter rule that would empower the federal government to oversee the material like other hazardous waste, and a less stringent rule that would treat it like ordinary trash and leave oversight up to the states. Amid an intense lobbying campaign by utilities, the EPA opted for the less strict approach.
Finalized in 2014, the federal coal ash rules require new disposal sites to be lined to help prevent groundwater contamination. But they don't mandate the cleanup and closure of existing dump sites, instead allowing ash to be left in place to potentially leach into the groundwater. And while the rules require utilities to monitor coal ash pits for leaks beginning in 2017, they don't specify that utilities must test for hexavalent chromium. In fact, the federal coal ash rule doesn't address the hexavalent chromium threat at all.
The problem of hexavalent chromium contamination of groundwater has come to light in North Carolina thanks to the Coal Ash Management Act, which was passed following Duke Energy's 2014 Dan River coal ash spill. It requires regulators to check for contaminants including hexavalent chromium near Duke's coal ash dumps.
But there are indications that hexavalent chromium contamination of groundwater from coal ash is a problem for other states as well.
A 2011 report by Earthjustice, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Environmental Integrity Project documented 26 coal ash dump sites in 17 states where ash-contaminated groundwater was found to contain chromium at levels at or exceeding the federal drinking water standard of 100 ppb. Among the Southern states with such sites besides North Carolina are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Tennessee and Virginia.
Some of the levels of hexavalent chromium documented in the report are extraordinarily high. For example, levels of 620 ppb were found near an unlined coal ash pit at TVA's Johnsonville plant in New Johnsonville, Tennessee. That's more than six times the federal drinking water standard for total chromium and 31,000 times the California drinking water goal.
Acknowledging the regulatory uncertainty and confusion behind North Carolina's coal ash-contaminated water crisis, Lisa Evans, an attorney and expert in coal ash regulation with Earthjustice and one of the authors of the 2011 report, said that the issue can be boiled down to a very basic problem that's still not been fixed by either federal or state regulations.
"You have unlined basins of toxic waste," she said. "That's not safe to have next to communities that rely on groundwater for drinking."
http://www.southernstudies.org/2016/04/ncs-coal-ash-poisoned-wells-a-harbinger-for-proble.html
-
Colo. Governor Urges EPA to Halt Ozone Standard
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) yesterday said it would be "a great idea" for U.S. EPA to suspend the ozone standard adopted last fall, a statement that swiftly won praise from business organizations and derision from one environmental group.
Hickenlooper made the comment in response to a question posed at a Denver oil industry forum on whether he agreed with state lawmakers who want to suspend the new 70-parts-per-billion ambient air quality benchmark because of concerns about the impact of "background ozone" on Colorado's ability to comply.
"Obviously, no different than any business, states want to have as much predictability as possible," he said. "And I think if they suspend the standards, it's not going to slow us down from continuing to try and make our air cleaner."
While Hickenlooper, like other Colorado elected leaders in both parties, has previously voiced doubts about the standard, this appeared to be the first time he has explicitly endorsed a delay in implementation.
Video of his remarks was circulated by the Center for Regulatory Solutions, an offshoot of the Virginia-based Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. Spokesman Matt Dempsey today called his comments "huge" for bipartisan efforts to halt the standard. At the National Association of Manufacturers, which has also been critical of the new benchmark, a top official said Hickenlooper "gets it."
While everyone wants clear air, "this is about needing reasonable policies that allow for continued improvements to air quality but also allow for continued investment and economic growth," Greg Bertelsen, the association's senior director for energy and resources policy, said in a statement today.
But Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, labeled the governor's comments "outrageously foolish," adding in a post on the environmental group's website that Denver could become "the new smog capital of America" as a result.
Ozone, a toxic gas that can irritate lung passageways and worsen diseases like asthma, is the main ingredient in smog. It is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight.
EPA lowered the standard from the previous 75 ppb threshold last October, citing fresh scientific evidence on ozone's health effects. Business lobbies have objected that the change is costly and unneeded. Officials in Colorado and other Western states have also voiced concerns that background ozone stemming from stratospheric intrusions or other factors not attributable to local human activity could pose a compliance barrier.
The 70 ppb standard was at the upper range of options that EPA regulators considered; it is now the subject of lawsuits from states and industry groups contending that the agency went overboard and environmental organizations that say the science warrants a 60 ppb standard. All the suits have been consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with the initial round of briefs due later this month (Greenwire, March 10).
While congressional Republicans slammed EPA's decision last fall, they have yet to take any action on legislation to put a hold on the new standard or kill it. A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee had no immediate information this morning on whether the panel plans to proceed with hearings or markups on H.R. 4265 or H.R. 4775, both sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) with the goal of slowing implementation for years.
A spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who said in October that the House would hold hearings on the new ozone standard "in the coming weeks," did not reply to an email this morning on whether he still plans to pursue the issue.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/01/stories/1060034965
-
In the Energy World, Renewables Have Already Arrived
Apr 1, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kevin Haley
Many of us enjoy a good social media-inspired “Throw Back Thursday,” a time to revisit amusing photos or memories of a past age when we were young and naïve, so to speak. Not many of us take it quite as literally, however, as the Koch-backed Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) did recently, when they published an anti-renewable energy hit piece in The Hill titled “Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale.”
Really? What is this, the 1990s? Read the facts – last year, wind and solar accounted for 67% of all new electrical generating capacity in the United States. If TPPF really wants to reminisce about the good ol’ days, maybe they should just stick to selfies.
Coming off the annual National Renewable Energy Policy Forum, this is actually a pretty convenient time to remind clean energy skeptics of just how far the industry has come in the past few years. Renewable energy has become a huge part of our economy. If we’re talking about competing with “hydrocarbons” – oil and gas to you and me – the solar power industry alone employs more people than the oil and gas extraction industry and more than the oil and gas pipeline construction industry, according to The Solar Foundation. Notably, the American solar industry also employs double the number of coal industry workers. So when offering up a “dose of reality,” maybe TPPF should start with the facts here in America.
Looking past booming employment, renewables are also driving major private sector investment. New figures from Bloomberg New Energy Finance puts investments in 2015 at a record-breaking $286 billion worldwide. This translates into 134 gigawatts of renewable power added last year, compared to just 87 gigawatts two years ago. And in fact, clean energy investments were more than double the estimated $130 billion invested in in coal and natural gas-fired power plants in 2015. As these figures show, it’s one thing for a think tank to complain about their own grievances with clean energy technologies, but it’s something else entirely when the full force of the free market has already picked a clear winner.
But don’t take my word for it. Corporate America has made their position on clean energy clear too. In the last few years, there has been a tremendous growth in corporate demand for renewables, specifically. Why? It’s simple. Renewable energy makes good business sense. With over 150 companies having signed the White House’s American Business Act on Climate Pledge – covering $4.2 trillion in annual revenue and a combined market capitalization of over $7 trillion – Corporate America's commitment to clean energy is undeniable and growing rapidly.
But what about this claim that renewables are “incapable?” Renewable energy is clearly popular, good for the economy, and the top energy choice for the biggest businesses in America – but still, is it capable? The answer is yes, absolutely. Take wind power, an increasingly large part of America’s energy mix. In 2015, it was the country’s largest source of new electricity, representing 35 percent of all new generating capacity, more than even solar or natural gas. Today, Iowa generates over 30 percent of its electricity with wind, and a dozen states use it to create at least 10 percent of their electricity. ERCOT, the main grid operator in Texas (where TPPF is located), has reliably supplied up to 45 percent of the state’s electricity with wind at times, and the main grid operator in Colorado has exceeded 60 percent.
Wind also helps improve grid reliability while saving consumers money. Whereas conventional power plants can go offline suddenly and without warning, removing large amounts of power from the grid, changes in wind output are gradual and can be predicted many hours in advance. This gives grid operators ample time to adapt. And we’re not considering reliable, baseload hydropower and geothermal. The capability of renewables is fully confirmed by a wonkish 2015 study from the experts at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which concludes that the western power grid is perfectly capable of handling large amounts of wind and solar energy.
So you be the judge: can renewables compete with fossil fuels? It’s a trick question – they already are.
It’s unfortunate to see the innocuously-named Texas Public Policy Foundation going after a growing sector of the economy like renewable energy with such a blatant attack piece. Renewables have had to earn their spot in our nation’s energy mix, and have done so through innovation, cost reductions and old-fashioned American perseverance. But in an economy that rewards competition, perhaps it’s no surprise to see renewables coming out on top.
Kevin Haley is the Communications Director at the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE). He is also a fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/274900-in-the-energy-world-renewables-have-already-arrived
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested